The problem is not the assault rule

[umbro]

I am not sure that making HT's one of a smaller group of spotting type units will support historical gameplay. I see it where HTs, after dropping off their infantry, will race all over the place (including deep strikes around/behind the lines) looking for juicy artillery targets. They'll be everywhere but near their related infantry which can spot for itself somewhat.

Agreed, which is why HTs should be worth 6VPs (or more) per SP, but that is a different debate.

As far as incorporating nationality differences into the arty routines. The best suggestion I saw so far was Huib's where ammo level would be split out into two numbers, one for artillery and one for regular ammo. That way a scenario designer could set the arty level at something fairly low, say 20-30%, for the Soviet side without totally messing with the regular soviet troops combat effectiveness. They'd still the capability to call in more indirect fire than historically, but the overall effect of Soviet artillery would be lessened.

This is a definite must for the future, and is a decent abstract for doctrine flexibility.

Perhaps we should forget about existing scenarios. They can be played with other optional rules (provided that the changes are programmed in such a way) until someone adjusts them. Virtually every change to the game will affect old scenarios. That should not be a "show stopper".

I agree that it should not be a show stopper, but it is tough to ignore the vast majority of existing scenarios (we have 2000 or so in the database) especially if we can formulate a solution that works for them as well.

New is good, but there is a baby in that bathwater!

...http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html
General overview of Doctrine and FO make up per nationality.
...

Excellent synopsis, with sources!

umbro

[Jason Petho]

Description of German FO and an example of use on the Eastern Front. Includes an interesting comment on artillery effects on armor. Sounding more like disrupts than disabled/destroyed. :smoke:

The last couple of lines make it sound like more disables and destroyed? No?

The Russian attack was repeated several times in very strong force, and every time was stopped by the barrage ordered and directed by the forward observer. Bodies of Russians and ruined tanks covered the field at evening, and the battalion officers thanked the battery commander, assuring him that the village would have fallen had it not been for the artillery support and the courageous conduct of the forward observer, who had fallen in the combat.

Jason Petho

[umbro]

A further side effect of these suggested changes would be to slow down offences as the attacker re-co-ordinated establishing arty LOS onto defensive targets. Perhaps other methods for achieving this effect would become unnecessary...

umbro

P.S. The last sentence was a supposed stab at humour and not meant to offend, at least, no more than the standard level of offence given by humour.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Description of German FO and an example of use on the Eastern Front. Includes an interesting comment on artillery effects on armor. Sounding more like disrupts than disabled/destroyed. :smoke:

The last couple of lines make it sound like more disables and destroyed? No?

The Russian attack was repeated several times in very strong force, and every time was stopped by the barrage ordered and directed by the forward observer. Bodies of Russians and ruined tanks covered the field at evening, and the battalion officers thanked the battery commander, assuring him that the village would have fallen had it not been for the artillery support and the courageous conduct of the forward observer, who had fallen in the combat.

Jason Petho

Truth there. Maybe so? :rolleyes:
Teasingly Ed writes: "the battalion officers thanked the battery commander, assuring him that the village would have fallen", unless it was subject to the new version 1.04 extreme assault rules and the Soviets had bad dice rolls? The defenders were in a village, eh? *wink*



Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

A further side effect of these suggested changes would be to slow down offences as the attacker re-co-ordinated establishing arty LOS onto defensive targets. Perhaps other methods for achieving this effect would become unnecessary...

umbro

P.S. The last sentence was a supposed stab at humour and not meant to offend, at least, no more than the standard level of offence given by humour.

I've missed your humor and good sense! :smoke:



Ed

[Jason Petho]

Truth there. Maybe so? :rolleyes:
Teasingly Ed writes: "the battalion officers thanked the battery commander, assuring him that the village would have fallen", unless it was subject to the new version 1.04 extreme assault rules and the Soviets had bad dice rolls? The defenders were in a village, eh? *wink*

*laughs*

Funny stuff.

Jason Petho

[FM WarB]

A fascinating thread, and I hope some change to artillery spotting is made. By keeping chain of command in mind, inter unit boundaries will be more important. I am not sure if it can be done with forward observers or commanders or some combination, but here is an idea.

platoon unit:
spots for indirect fire units belonging to its own company only

with C&C on, company command unit (or 1st platoon):
spots for indirect fire units belonging to its own company + one command level higher

Commander 1 or FO 1:
spots for indirect fire units belonging to its own organization + one command level higher

Commander 2 or FO 2:
spots for indirect fire units belonging to its own organization + two command levels higher
etc, etc, etc.

Only five levels are needed for a Commander or FO placed at company level to call all the way up to army level.

Using different combination of numbers of commanders and FOs, their levels, and who they are attached to (including firing batteries), it would be possible to simulate different armies' artillery tactics and capabilities.

AND make this an Optional Rule, pretty please!

[umbro]

It does seem that different army doctrines could be fully described by such a up/down command chain processes.

From a user interface standpoint when you select an indirect fire capable unit you would need to differentiate targets that were direct fire, spotted indirect fire, and unspotted indirect fire (as there would now be targets that were spotted but not available to be targeted for spotted indirect fire.) This would be an extension of current functionality.

Also, it would be useful to know which artillery units were available to be called in by a particular spotting unit or spotted target hex. This would be new functionality.

umbro

[Chuck10mtn]

As a frim believer of the just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I will continue to point out that we shouldn't want every concievable unit ever in, or thought of in WWII. Look at how many units that go un-used in the game and lets purge some of them. No wait we can't because somebody will want that one unit in one scenario. Lets please stop the nonsence of adding more units..1st its a spotter unit,and oh yea we need a radio counter so the man carrying it moves slower and the added chance of the radio being ruined or just the operator being killed and the radio being usable, then a clerk for the HQ then lets add a cook at the battalion level, and if all that fails to make everybody happy, we could always add the aide deCamp to every leader on the map.Followed up by plane visits by the leader of a nation for a morale level boost of all units within 30 hexes of him. Not to be out done by the covert actions of intellagence agencies trying to assinate him.
When do we stop, lets not continue down this road. I do understand the need for change, but do I dare mention the last assult change and the resulting effects that still linger in many players mind today. Thanks for the time and space to mention my thoughts on the subject.

Chuck

[FM WarB]

As a frim believer of the just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Just because we can fire all artillery on the map because one lone platoon anywhere, belonging to anyone can spot, desn't mean we should. But who doesn't?[/b]